This particular chapter is challenging to respond to as I find many layers worthy of discussion while much of it seems unrelated to what I believe is the main point. This presents a challenge in organizing my thoughts and when to make particular points and arguments. You will perhaps see what I mean as I dissect it further.
My best attempt at summarizing the intent of the chapter would be the following:
- We are often submitting to a "contract" of behavioral choices--a facade--that is destroying our authenticity and wasting our lives.
- We follow this contract out of fear and conditioning.
- We don't have to obey this contract.
What this chapter is lacking:
- A description of what all is being lumped into this contract metaphor.
- What Stan expects us to do instead.
- What Stan expects will happen beyond the obvious exile and suffering if we stop "obeying."
What Stan is doing behind the scenes:
- Using a voice of authority to shame the reader into obeying his advice to stop being shamed into obeying authority.
- Making sweeping generalizations.
- Not filling the gap after telling us what not to do which could lead to repeat failure.
- Making conclusions from non-sequitur arguments that aren't actually necessary to his point.
I believe the summary above is generally a good message. Many people (presumably the readers themselves) are probably stuck in this loop of obedience and fear. Just saying to stop is not enough and is actually dangerous without further instruction on what exactly should be stopped or what to do differently. He leaves the message far too vague and generalized to the point that a reader might come away believing they should tell their son his painting sucks in order to remain authentic and then smugly believe this somehow makes them a better person. I hope that's not the case, and I hope that wasn't his intent, but he unfortunately did not articulate it very clearly. And the more I "hope" regarding Stan's intent, the more I grow concerned.
What I hope Stan is trying to convey is that we all too often defer to authority and we should probably start focusing on how to trust ourselves more and to start emanating our own aura of authority. I can get behind that sentiment fully and hopefully the next chapter says how. This is also a topic near and dear to my own heart which I would have approached in a significantly different manner. To put it simply: how we view ourselves has a direct correlation to how we present ourselves which has a direct correlation to how others treat us. If we fear authority, we present as submissive and stay submissive. We create our reality based upon our self-image. If we believe in ourselves and present an aura of authority, people who are less sure of themselves will submit while we get promoted.
This posture of authority is exactly what Stan is doing with this chapter and the book as a whole. Since his target audience is made of those tired of being weak and broken, it works like an absolute charm to take an authoritative role and belittle the readers into submission. But does it help the readers or just his pocketbook? Up to this point, I've been giving the benefit of the doubt, but this chapter pushes me slightly over. He is using a classic technique of identity degradation. If he lowers the reader's self concept with statements that sound plausible and relatable, the reader will more likely regard him as a leader worth following. It increasingly suggests he has an agenda bent more toward his own personal brand than his interest in helping people, but there is still the potential he believes this is necessary to get his points across. Maybe? But I'm running out of steam making excuses on his behalf. That said, I still think there might be some salvageable parts to his book if we get past the hypnotic elements.
Below, I will continue with responses to the various points made throughout the chapter and much of it will be irrelevant to the main point expressed above based upon what was present in the chapter.
Pain
Stan begins with a somewhat cryptic metaphor that we have a leash around our neck via a contract we devised of our own accord. He alludes that any action we take opposed to our authentic selves is evidence of this leash and that we willingly play along: laughing at unfunny jokes, not speaking up, nodding when disagreeing, etc. In a way, he is not wrong, but the implicit message is "do not be this way." I don't wish to be entirely dismissive of this perspective and I will allow him to flesh out his point more fully, but my initial reaction is hesitance. I don't immediately see a path to success when you make everyone around you uncomfortable in the guise of authenticity. It might work for monetary and external success by making others so uncomfortable that they treat you like authority yourself, but I do not personally put all my eggs in a monetary and physical success basket. That point aside, in general, I'm going to assume most people could stand to be more authentic in general and be more selective where they play along.
Social pain is similar to physical pain. This is true and studies have shown it as such. One can take pain killers to numb the pain of heartbreak as Stan similarly points out. He uses this point to illustrate why we began signing our contracts to begin with: to avoid feeling the pain of rejection. While this is partially true, this is only half of the story. Rejection can indeed hurt, but that is not the only reason to sign the contract, so to say. Stan acknowledges that those who stand their ground to their authentic selves have endured exile and even explains this as the reason for evolving actual pain around social rejection in the first place. But then he seems to forget that real repercussions exist and focuses on the mental aspect. He indicates there might be others around you that are secretly on your side, but there is no such guarantee. He appears to be making a sweeping generalization that you should always be true to yourself. That generally sounds good, and I won't outright disagree, but let's analyze what that truly looks like.
Sometimes authenticity is the difference between life and death. Consider living in Russia. In early 2022, protestors began holding up blank signs so as to say the unspoken without actually saying it. They were arrested even for that. Yes, there are silent supporters which the blank signs were hoping to rally, but arrest and even death is a significant threat. Is it worth speaking up more directly? Not too long ago in our own American past, many homosexual people would be murdered for being authentic. This is a philosophical discussion with many opinions and no solid answers. Is it better to live and die authentically or is there a level of mask worth tolerating for peace? Most of us aren't facing death, but we might face social exile or firing if we don't fit in enough. But what is enough? And what are the tradeoffs? And what are the outcomes? All of this is missing in this chapter. Stan simply says to stop being inauthentic while giving severe moralistic examples but using more general everyday verbiage. In honor of his own advice, I'd like more explanation before simply obeying.
So yes, we do have a choice between wearing our masks to fit in or else to be ostracized, fired, hated, or even murdered. These are real world outcomes of choices that go against the flow and we generally see them as not being a real choice at all. This is what Stan is trying to remind us though: it is still a choice. Do not short circuit it. We can indeed choose exile for better or worse. We should actually analyze that cost. He does not make it appear particularly appealing, however, and his almost religious moralistic mindset of always being true to yourself might very well get you stoned by the local clergy if not simply alone in a corner without friends.
In most cases, the outcomes will not be catastrophic and perhaps that is more what Stan is speaking to. I tend to support this perspective as I have often chosen authenticity over fitting in, but it wasn't a mystical source of power as one might assume from the way he speaks of it. I received exactly as one might expect: I was ostracized and hated. And it did hurt. And I was alone. And I do keep making these decisions to my own suffering. What I get out of it is not power. It is not the praise and prestige of others as he alludes is possible. It has yet to be the hidden support of others. It is often not even the joy of being true to myself. It is far more subtle. I endure the pain and simply retain the knowledge that I will not be bought or tricked. I get a weak sense of self-assurance while often being concerned that I am being a damned fool. Is it worth the trade? It's hard to say as I don't know any other way. I do often look with envy on those who can blindly follow and belong, but I simply can't do it. And honestly, I am fairly well off. So maybe it's working and I'm simply not comprehending my disdain for authority as the cause.
All that said, I have learned to bite my tongue much more which Stan also seems to deride. Should I truly be a beacon of dissent in all things at all times? I really don't think so. I think that is the wrong lesson to take from this. The only steadfast rule I've come to follow is that there are no steadfast rules that have no exceptions. One must analyze the situation and a make a decision. I believe that is more what Stan was truly getting at, but it was almost a side note at the end of the chapter and is very easy to miss after assuming he's telling us to never back down throughout the rest of the chapter.
Reward
After reminding us that we can choose suffering and insinuating it's the right choice to remaining authentic, Stan moves on to indicate that we also seek our own pleasure when choosing our facade. When we receive praise for obedience or approval for fitting in, the dopamine hit brings us back for more. This certainly makes sense, but it doesn't resonate with me if it is in conjunction with a behavior I did not align with. The praise would be short circuited by the guilt. Perhaps not everyone is that way?
But for evidence, Stan brings up studies on intermittent reinforcement theory. The theory goes that if a reward is not consistent, it drives more addictive behavior. He cites the study of a rat and a lever. When the rat presses the lever, it gets food. The rat will do this only when hungry. Now when the lever only provides food every once in a while, the rat becomes obsessed with pressing the lever. Ergo: addicted. This has been shown for humans in similar studies and is referenced in regard to gambling (slot machine levers and money rewards), but the conclusions are weak. Gambling introduces another and stronger force: loss aversion. Stan talks about this later as well.
Humans performing the lever experiment act similarly to the rat, but they could simply be trying to understand the rule set. Can they not blink? Is it tuned to pressure? Timing? Angle? Why does it sometimes work and not others? It's mystery solving--not necessarily dopamine addiction. Or maybe it's simple fear: if it's finicky now, will it stop working when I want food later? These studies also conclude that the subject will continually press the button or lever much longer after intermittent reinforcement than they will with consistent reinforcement once rewards are permanently disabled. This seems rather obvious and logical rather than attributing it to addiction. Loss of reward is far greater evidence of defect in a machine that is 100% consistent than it is for a machine where lack of reward is sometimes just the name of the game. Is it really broken or just a string of bad luck?
When it comes to abusive relationships, which Stan also brought up, the unreliable praise of a partner doesn't have to be the addicting factor so much as the very livelihood of the individual enduring the treatment mingled with other social and psychological factors. Such studies are far from conclusive in this context, and, quite honestly, none of this adds a whole lot to this story.
Authority
Stan continues his reward-based argument for obedience by bringing up the study where participants were instructed to shock a subject in another room for wrong answers to questions. Don't worry, it was only an actor they heard screaming. Since this is a fascinating study, I will provide more information here than was in the book. Participants were told to increment the shock level for every wrong answer the "subject" provided. The levels were labeled as follows:
15–60V: Slight Shock
75–120V: Moderate Shock
135–180V: Strong Shock
195–240V: Very Strong Shock
255–300V: Intense Shock
315–360V: Extreme Intensity Shock
375–420V: Danger: Severe Shock
450V: XXX
In this study, 65% of the participants went as far as 450V with the gentle prodding of the scientist: “The experiment requires that you continue.” This was only when the scientist was in the room, however. When over the phone, this number dropped to 25%. If another authority figure disagreed, 0% continued. Even if another peer disagreed, it still dropped to 10%. None of this screams, "I get a dopamine hit for obedience." What it says is simply that people are unsure of their own ability to reason and trust those who are paid to do just that. The scientist is saying to continue, so maybe the labels are just wrong. Maybe the device was repurposed and doesn't really mean that? Maybe the labels were conservative? Heck if I know, but the scientist says to continue. Surely he knows his test better than I do...
The moment you take away the belief that the authority must know better than their own judgement, or even removing facing the authority directly, they stop performing the task and defer to their own. There is an additional detail which I will include for completeness, but I don't believe it changes much: at 300V, the actor pounds on the wall, removes consent for the test, and says he refuses to answer any more questions. From that point on, he provided no further answers and there was no sound of pain when shocked. The scientist instructed the participant to continue administering shocks and to take no answer as a wrong answer. 100% of people got to this point, but only the previous percentages above continued beyond it.
Why doesn't this matter? Well, it does prove the point that most people will commit atrocities at the command of authority (when present), but this says absolutely nothing in regard to doing it for a dopamine hit nor fully explain why. The participants were visibly shaken and sweating as they continued against their better judgement and were quite likely still rationalizing that the authority knew best or simply feared to disagree. They couldn't see what was happening in the other room and they could have made any amount of wild rationalizations to assume they were missing something. They made no sound, so perhaps they took the machine off. It's still terrible in the end, but not a reward response to obedience. Far too many people simply put far too much faith and fear in authority, and I honestly believe that's the better takeaway. Authority is simply another human and you should indeed question when they go against your morals in your own understanding. So why didn't Stan make that argument instead?
Stan continues with many other stories of people obeying authority against laws within business, but none of them seem to fulfill the "Obedience as Opiate" heading. They're simply fearful of losing their jobs or other negative consequences. In the end, people don't trust themselves, and they fear authority and repercussions from them. The message still stands that we should recognize this about ourselves, not be driven by such fear, and to truly analyze and trust our analysis on how we should proceed even in the face of authority. In general, I think this is good for proving our own capability and strength to become the next authority ourselves, and it is further good for society even when not good personally. So I like the conclusion, just not the reasons and evidence used to support it.
Cognitive Dissonance
When a person holds two contradictory beliefs, they face what's called cognitive dissonance. This happens a lot with religion which causes some mental gymnastics to believe some rather interesting things. I'll leave that to your own imagination to avoid offending my readers (sorry, Stan!). In this case, Stan is referring to beliefs about one's own qualities and actions that betray such qualities. This causes a person to justify their bad behavior similar to the shocking study covered above. A person can go to 450V and believe they're still a good person by rationalizing away the conflicting evidence. He brings this up to essentially point out that we do in fact lie to ourselves.
In lying to ourselves, we often gloss over things that we should or should not be doing instead. This is well and fine, but Stan ties this into our being a pawn of society as if to reinforce that we shouldn't simply do what is socially acceptable. It is possible he's only referring to more significant betrayals such as laughing along with prejudice and cruelty, but he continues to throw generalities in the same pot which makes me assume he's being all encompassing. Don't tell your kid their drawing is good, don't smile when your coworker bores you, etc. One example he uses is a study where participants tell a lie for a dollar. It's not a significant reward to say it was worth the lie, so they instead lie to themselves and say it was a fun task to resolve the dissonance.
If Stan is referring to more significant betrayals, then this chapter seems to assume this is far more common than I'd hope. Perhaps that's my own ignorance bubble, but I'm not generally facing these significant betrayals of integrity myself. The most common instance I face is in political foolishness of friends and family, but my own wisdom tells me there is nothing to be gained by arguing in most cases. I do not agree, but I do not disagree. Does that meet Stan's recommendation? It's hard to say because he never actually states it clearly. He is simply speaking in an authoritative tone and saying "bad" to those of us who identify with the behavior while providing no clear guidance or explanation for any alternatives. This behavior is exactly the behavior he believes his readers are prone to responding to. He says not to blindly obey authority while knowing his readers will do just that for himself. The kinds of people who are drawn to his book are the kinds of people who will fall for this.
Moral Licensing
Stan mentions that people will perform a kind moral licensing where they will do one good thing and use it to justify rejecting a moral choice later. This still has little to do with the main topic at hand beyond simply beating down the reader to realize just how miserable a person they really are. You're a worm. You suck. You should stop it. Now follow me.
At any rate, the moral licensing is an interesting concept. It is a real thing, though not exactly as described. And again, it's rather irrelevant to the main point. The concept should be paired with moral consistency as they are seemingly contradictory effects. The main difference is demonstration versus identity. If a person demonstrates their fairness, their anti-racism, or whatever good quality, they feel less inclined to prove it again. They can already point to an example, why make more? As for identity, however, if they have recently identified as a good person, not just demonstrated it, they'll be more likely to uphold that identity and continue to demonstrate it in order to remain internally consistent.
What's further interesting is that one study showing moral licensing seems to indicate it was all for show to begin with. Participants were asked to select between two candidates for a job. There was a white person and a black person. They intentionally made the black person ever so slightly less qualified. Participants would select the black person anyway. The most obvious reasons would be to prove they're not racist or to otherwise provide a form of affirmative action. Such candidates later, however, were more willing to rate candidates more harshly based solely on stereotypical traits of black people. It really should have been exactly the other way around or at least consistent.
As for moral consistency, however, studies would have people write a brief paragraph regarding some of their moral qualities (being kind, generous, helpful, etc) and then shortly thereafter were asked to donate their participation amount of $10 to charity. On average, those who wrote about their positive qualities gave more of their earnings to charity than did those in the control group who wrote about an unrelated topic.
Self-Handicapping
Create an obstacle for yourself so that when you fail, you can blame the obstacle rather than your own capability. This is a very real thing and a very common thing. Many people nowadays use medical diagnoses like ADHD, Depression, Bi-Polar, Autism, etc. It's not me that sucks, it's this impairment! Stan uses the example of not preparing for an interview or test so that the lack of prep could be blamed rather than one's actual attempt revealing them as a true failure. He kind of glosses over all this and adds it to the bucket of why the reader is a lowly worm. He relates this back to betraying one's own values which is perhaps what the chapter should have been about. Still, he more or less points out how we constantly do this and dresses it up as a call to face our betrayals of values. But that's all it really is: dress up. He's pointing out the reader's flaws (or humanity's for that matter) and saying "look how terrible you are, you need me to fix this for you and if you stop listening to me, that's a parasite holding you back and you're a failure." (pssst: that's cult leader behavior)
Stay Down
Short story: shocking dogs in cages will cause them to attempt escape. Finding no escape, they eventually lay down and endure the continued shocks without hope. Even when the cage is open and freedom is easy, they have learned defeat and stay down. In this study, we learn that people are cruel to dogs while also learning about learned helplessness. People are the same. Defeat after defeat, we learn to stop trying. We put the locus of control externally and assume we can't improve our situation. This is where our real loss of power comes from. And this is what needs far more attention. Unfortunately, this is glossed over quickly as just another reason to feel inferior and in need of a savior. Stan provides a fairly empty admonishment to recognize when we lie to ourselves that there is no point in trying, but it is empty fuel. The reader can burn it quickly while continuing to read but they have learned no skills as of yet to maintain a level of clarity to overcome it perpetually. The downward spiral of hopelessness is not resolved with a pep talk alone.
Masks of Belonging
That's correct, Wendy. We all wear masks--metaphorically speaking... If you don't get the reference, go ask your mom. Anyway, masks truly are an every day occurrence. They are not self-sabotage, they are self-preservation. Do they betray us? Well, this goes back to the age-old debate of risk and reward for authenticity. We've jumped back to that topic. Here, however, Stan mentions an interesting phenomenon from a particularly famous experiment by Solomon Asch. So let's talk about that.
A subject was placed in a room with 7 to 9 other presumed participants who were in fact actors. A simple question was presented: which line out of A, B, or C matched the presented target line. It was obvious, but the actors were told to agree on a wrong answer. A whopping 75% of subjects would follow suit (at least once) and provide the obvious wrong answer rather than sticking to what they knew to be true.
In interviews afterward, the subject explains that they were confused. They didn't want to look stupid and assumed they must be misunderstanding something. They didn't agree, they didn't think the group was right, but they just could say what they believed because they couldn't grapple with the belief that they could be the only one in the group who truly knows what's up. Honestly, I think the reasoning is very honest. If everyone is saying something, it's far more likely that you're the one who is off. However, this is not always the case, and 75% of people will gladly pretend rather than speak up and show their confusion. This is self-preservation at its best. It's also why it's so hard to get anything fixed around here.
The experiment reveals a common aspect of humanity. I wouldn't put too much moral weight on it, but I would encourage people to rise above it. It takes courage, but the risks are often low in such scenarios. Take the low risks to start with and build some confidence or at least some clarity. This is a skill, not a self-betrayal. The rest at this point rehashes points I've already touched on.
The Price of Dissent
Stan begins to to discuss the tradeoff of not wearing a mask. It can have consequences. He accurately mentions that humans typically have what's called loss aversion where we find loss to be over twice as painful as an equivalent gain feels good. To over-simplify, if you gain $200 then lose $100, you feel like you broke even. We hate losing things. And so, we fear all the more the losses of removing our masks. This effect is also why fear messaging outperforms hope messaging in political campaigns. We're far more moved to action to avoid a loss than we are to reach for a gain.
Stan mentions that we're only looking at the loss for removing the mask and we're not looking at what we'd gain by removing it. Humorously (or perhaps intentionally appealing to loss aversion), instead of telling us what we could gain by removing our mask, he tells us what we have lost by not removing it. Unfortunately, that loss is hidden behind our own imaginations. What could have been if I went to be an actor instead of going to school for engineering? I have lost my opportunity to be friends with Jim Carrey and Steve Carrell right now! I could have been boating in a Yacht signing autographs! Sure... but I could also have become a beach bum in Hollywood waiting for my big break. The fact is, there's no guarantee that another path would have been any better. We could spend all day on the day-dreamy what ifs, but none of this is solid evidence for anything.
Whistleblowers often suffer major consequences but then report long-term satisfaction that they did the right thing. Well, of course they do. We're great at justification and what good is it to berate ourselves for a good action on top of the loss? It's essentially reverse sour grapes (That's an Aesop fable where a fox couldn't reach the grapes and decided they were probably sour in order to console himself).
Despite all this, the point is still fairly valid. We are indeed loss averse and we as humans typically suck at weighing true risks. The answer is then to work on those skills, not to screw it all, rip off the masks, and hope for the best.
Death Beds
People often regret what they didn't do while lying on their death beds. Yes. Part of this is due to many coming to grips with the ultimate meaningless of it all. All the things we thought were important suddenly are not. Money, fame, fortune, all meaningless. The lesson of what truly was meaningful is often too challenging for a younger person to even grasp. And in some ways, it's perhaps not worth grasping early on. Younger people need to focus on sustainability of life. But as we get older, we start to realize that relationships are what matter most to us. Memories. How we made others feel about us. Some never learn. And some realize it too late on their death beds. This is something to be aware of, to be analyzing, and to consider as we age. It is not a call to simply do all the things we feel like doing without abandon.
Save Yourself
Stan almost redeems himself in this final bit of the chapter. He warns that after reading all of this, you may hear one of two voices. The first says it's too much and to go to sleep while the other says to go and do something dramatic. He warns these are both traps. So finally, he's providing the first warning to his "screw the masks" messaging. He then says to face the contract without flinching. This is also good. Recognize all these things about the nature of life without actually making any emotional reactions to it. Understand it. Stop thinking you have no control and recognize that it's all just decisions with pros and cons to be weighed.
Unfortunately, this part is so short in comparison, that it doesn't outweigh the rest of the chapter in my opinion. Over the course of an hour and a half (per the audiobook), Stan has told his readers just how much they betray themselves, he reinforced their low station, provided no guidance to do anything beyond "stop it," and then says to sit quietly with it for 20 seconds.
Final Thoughts
As much as I disliked this particular chapter, if I am to continue assuming a good intent on behalf of Stan, it would be that he intended to provide the message I summarized at the beginning. That intent is still good, but quite poorly executed. I like to think in probabilities and this chapter is pushing my threshold of probability that Stan is intentionally building a name for himself. I give it about a 60% likelihood at this point with a 40% benefit of the doubt that he may still mean well despite the well-executed psychological games. Will the ends justify the means....?
If you have enjoyed this summary, you may be interested in previewing my latest book which I am currently writing. This book will be free to the benefit of mankind and you can provide your comments to help guide its direction.
Your Mind is Made of Voices
